I Hate Taxes
13 Mar 2012 2 Comments
I haven’t written in over a week because I have been gathering all of our tax information. I’ve also been procrastinating gathering all of our tax information. In celebration, I think this week will be Tax Week on the blog.
Max and I are both self-employed. In 2010, we asked a tax professional – not the one who actually does our taxes, because she only works half the year, but a trusted individual who teaches accounting – what we should do about our taxes. He said to save 30% of our income for taxes. OK. We then asked if building a home office would be tax deductible. He said yes. He had a home office – an add on – for many years. So, I did some basic math and decided that we could afford to add the home office by using our tax savings because the home office deduction would offset what we owed.
When we got our taxes done, we found out that a) we should have been paying taxes quarterly, and b) the home office wasn’t actually tax deductible. It’s tax deductible in the year that it is completed, but even then, it must be amortized over 40 years. If we had known that, we wouldn’t have built the office. We ended up with a five figure tax bill, just slightly larger than what we would have saved if we hadn’t built the office.
So, I’m dreading tax time this year. We can claim Cassie as a dependent (yay!) but can’t claim any of her adoption expenses until next year (boo!). We paid some of our quarterly taxes (yay!) but not all of them because we needed money for the adoption (boo money, yay adoption). I made far less money last year than I did in 2010 (yay?) but Max made far more money than he did in 2010 (yay?).
Last year, we owed more, percentage-wise, than Mitt Romney. That is unacceptable.
I would be far more accepting of taxes if I thought my taxes actually DID something. Like paid for my health care. Or ensured that my son’s school has the supplies it needs. Or got the idiots in Congress who are too busy fighting over birth control to go after the banks and pass some mortgage relief for the people who are trying to pay their mortgages. (Let the record show that I think birth control is a good idea, I just think mortgage relief is a better one at this particular moment.) Or really got the idiots in Congress to do anything except fight and be absurd.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – times like these, I wish I lived in France.
You’d Rather Be Blind Than Infertile. Really?
28 Jan 2012 4 Comments
in issues, not kids Tags: infertility, rant
I normally don’t bash people on my blog. I save that for Facebook.
Seriously, calling people names doesn’t usually accomplish anything. I also try to live by the rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
But in this case, the people said something so ignorant, it makes me angrier every time I think about it. I must get that anger out.
These people stated that they would rather be blind than infertile.
The blog post at Creating a Family, begins with a story of a woman stating that she would:
rather be blind because at least then treatment would be covered and people would understand what she was going through.
Then one person commented:
Yes, I would rather be blind. It is a terrible disability, but nothing compared to the despair that our infertility journey has taken us.
I never use this phrase, but never have I believed it to be so justified – Get your head out of your ass!
Being blind is nothing compared to the despair of not being able to bear children?
Nothing?
I am not now, nor have I ever been, blind. I’ve never been infertile either. Because of my CRPS, I shouldn’t have biological children, but I never wanted biological children to begin with. I admit that I don’t understand what drives people to incredible lengths to conceive, bear, and birth a child. (On the flip side, I know a lot of people who don’t understand what drives people to go through the rigorous roller coaster ride of adoption.) Because of my CRPS, I do know what it’s like to have a disability that no one sees and no one understands.
At Oracle, one of our group’s main goals was to create software that would enable other technical writers to create documentation that was accessible to blind readers. During this time, I learned a lot about the blind. For example, the blind are chronically un- and underemployed. I learned about some of the barriers blind people face every day. I heard the discrimination they face. I cannot tell you the number of times our group was told, “Well, it’s not like there are that many blind database administrators anyway.” Perhaps if the technology was more accessible, there would be more blind database administrators!
Being infertile is never going to stop a person from getting a job. Being blind will. There are many professions and career paths that are closed to blind people – anything in the graphic arts, many medical professions (would you want a blind surgeon?), anything involving driving, and how many blind actors do you know? Dancers?
What happens when an infertile person realizes she’s out of her favorite cereal? She gets in her car, drives to the supermarket. She sees that there’s construction in front of the usual entrance, so she goes to the further one. Once inside, she sees that the store has been reorganized. She goes to the new cereal aisle. She finds her cereal. She goes to the front of the store, buys it, and goes back to her car. She drives home.
What happens when a blind person realizes she’s out of her favorite cereal? Obviously, she can’t drive. She has someone who helps her with errands, but today’s not his usual day. So, she seeks out the bus schedule on her computer. (Let’s assume that the public transit people have complied with Section 508 guidelines and have made their web site accessible to people who use screen reading software.) The next bus comes in 20 minutes. She can just make it. She gets to the bus stop, gets on the bus. She asks someone nearby to tell her when the supermarket stop is coming. She gets off of the bus. She starts for the store entrance. “Hey lady!,” someone yells. She’s almost walked through the “Caution” tape and into a gaping hole in the pavement. A bit shaken, she asks for some help in going to the other entrance. Once inside, she heads for Aisle 13 and finds… pickles? She goes back up to the front of the store to ask, “Where’s the cereal?”. Now it’s on Aisle 3. She asks another shopper for assistance. He hands her the cereal. She goes back to the front of the store and pays for her cereal. She then waits for the bus.
What happens when an infertile person gives birth to a baby? It’s heralded as a miracle. Everyone cheers.
What happens when a blind person gives birth to a baby? She’s met with constant questions about whether a blind person can successfully parent a child.
Society is set up for the sighted. Being blind makes a lot of things harder. A blind person can’t do everything a sighted person can, and there’s nothing wrong with admitting that.
There are options for infertile people. Some people who experience infertility are able to pursue treatments and do have children. Jackson’s godparents are an example of such a couple. Some people pursue surrogacy or adoption. Ultimately, anyone with the drive to become a parent can find a way to become one. It may cost a lot of money. They may need to be creative. The process is not fun. It’s frustrating, disheartening, depressing. No one understands what they’re going through. There is a lot of loss and grief.
At this time, there aren’t a lot of options for blind people. Many people who are blind will never see. They will never get the privileges that the sighted take for granted. Example: If they have children, they will never really know what those children look like.
So to anyone who really believes that he or she would rather be blind than infertile, I say, “Stop your pity party.” You have got to be in a pretty sad, self-absorbed place to believe that being blind is nothing compared to being unable to bear a child. I really hope you find the help you need. I also hope you never find out that being blind is worse than being infertile.
In the Best Interest of the Children
22 Sep 2011 Leave a Comment
in adoption, not kids Tags: adoption, discrimination, rant
Recently, the Huffington Post featured a piece by Adam Pertman, director of the Evan B. Donaldson Institute. In it, Pertman asks, ”With So Many Kids Who Need Families, Why Are We Rejecting Parents?” Many states do not allow gay parents to foster or adopt children from foster care. Studies have shown that gay parenting is not harmful to children, and that having a stable family life is better than foster care. Therefore, the agencies who state that they are thinking of the best interests of the children cannot hide behind that. Agencies who discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation do so because they erroneously believe that families lead by two heterosexual parents are better than families lead by two homosexual parents. By refusing to serve homosexual parents, they are essentially stating that no family is better than one lead by homosexuals.
Like many others, I am sick of the discrimination. Personally, I do not believe that any adoption agency, public or private, should be able to discriminate against prospective parents who meet the state’s home study requirements. Think about it – restaurants, retail stores, hospitals, and many other establishments do not get to choose the people they serve on the basis of a protected class. A hospital cannot turn away a Black patient or a Jewish patient. A store cannot serve only men. A restaurant cannot serve only heterosexual couples. Why are adoption agencies allowed to discriminate?
Agencies that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sexual identity, or membership in other protected classes are not acting in the best interest of the children they claim to serve. For example, Bethany Christian may believe that children are better off in Christian homes. However, there is no research to back up that claim. Really, Bethany and other Christian-only agencies want to create more Christian children. Instead of serving the children, they are furthering their own agendas, and denying parents and children the opportunity to become families.
Certainly, if an agency receives state or federal dollars it should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of membership in a protected class. I would go further and state that any agency, no matter how it is funded, should not be able to deny prospective parents who meet the home study requirements of their states. It’s just not in the best interest of the children.
An Ideal World
08 Jun 2011 Leave a Comment
in just a thought, not kids Tags: rant
How many times have you heard the phrase “an ideal world”?
In an ideal world [fill in the blank] wouldn’t exist.
From ants to racism to zyzzyva, in an ideal world, it wouldn’t exist.
I’ve never liked the phrase “in an ideal world”. I was thinking about it today in the context of another post that’s been brewing for awhile.
Call me slow, but just today, I realized something: one person’s ideal world is not the same as another person’s ideal world.
In my ideal world, neuropathic pain wouldn’t exist. But neurologists might not like that too much. Then, again, maybe in their ideal world, they’d all be beach bums. I’m pretty sure that the lifeguards don’t include a bunch of middle-aged paunchy people on the beach when they imagine their ideal worlds. (Sorry, but all of the neurologists I’ve met have been middle-aged and paunchy, even the one female neurologist.)
I think that, in everyone’s ideal world, racism would not exist. But for some people, racism wouldn’t exist because we’ve all embraced our differences and come together as one. While for others, racism wouldn’t exist because we’d all be white with blonde hair and blue eyes.
So you see, an ideal world doesn’t exist. One ideal world will never exist. Millions of little ideal worlds won’t exist either. We can’t decide on what makes the world ideal.
Therefore, I have decided to never again use the phrase “an ideal world”. Certainly not in writing. Hopefully not while speaking. I may slip and say it when I’m nagging a child in the future, but I’ll try really hard not to.
Who’s with me? I say, down with an ideal world!
An Amended Birth Certificate Isn’t a Lie
10 May 2011 2 Comments
in issues, not kids Tags: birth certificates, rant
Apparently, a few days before the US killed Osama Bin Laden, President Barack Obama released his long form birth certificate. In the adoption community, many people – especially adult adoptees – noted that most adoptees would not be able to furnish such a document. You see, in almost all states, adult adoptees are not allowed access to their original birth certificates (OBCs).
When a person is born, a birth certificate is created. When a person is adopted, that birth certificate is changed, or amended, to reflect who the person’s parents are.
Many adoptees, and some people who aren’t adoptees, call the amended birth certificate a lie. I wrote about it at AdoptionBlogs.com, just over two years ago. I vehemently disagree.
Regardless of the history of the birth certificate, at this point, the birth certificate is not a medical record. It is a legal document. Legally, I am my son’s mother. Fine. In an adoption, this is pretty straightforward. But there are other situations in which the biological parent differs from the one who might legally be a parent. In embryo adoption, the biological parents are completely different than the legal parents, and the biological mother is not the mother who gave birth to the child. In surrogacy, the woman who gives birth may or may not be the biological mother, and the legal father may or may not be the biological father. There’s egg donation and sperm donation to think about. Who’s on the birth certificate then?
I have often thought that there should be an additional two fields on birth certificates: Biological Father and Biological Mother. But I recently read a comment on an adoption blog that made me question that. I can’t find the blog post right now, but I know the person who commented is another adoptive parent blogger. She wrote that it wasn’t anyone’s business to know that her children are adopted. She wants that information to be private for them to share as they wish. She further stated that, if the children’s biological parents were listed, that would cause others in their community to treat them differently, as these people were well known (and not in a good way).
(ETA: I found the comment! It’s jensboys.)
As I’ve always said, there are two issues here: Access to original birth certificates and the birth certificates themselves.
I believe that all people should have unfettered access to their original birth certificates.
I also believe that my son’s birth certificate is correct. My name – his mother’s name – is Robyn Chittister, and his father’s name is Robert Chittister. (Yes, Robert. That’s another post.) Nowhere on his birth certificate does it say he was born to me. On my own birth certificate, the Attendant’s Certification reads “I hereby certify that I attended this birth and that the child was born at the hour, date, and place stated above.” Notice that the attendant doesn’t certify that the child was born to these parents.
The “amended birth certificates are lies” people say that the adoption decree should be enough to satisfy the legal question as to who the child’s parents are. Using the adoption decree simply isn’t practical.
- Adoption decrees are long legalese documents, not one-pagers.
- It would be extremely easy to fake an adoption decree. I think ours was done from a standard Word template. There’s not even a letterhead or a seal, though the judge did sign it at the end.
- Why is it everyone’s business that the child was adopted? No, adoption isn’t something we should be ashamed of, but every individual should be able to decide if he really wants to share that information with the college registrar, the HR guy, the town clerk, the passport office…
- What about situations in which the biological parents didn’t give birth to the child? Who’s listed on the birth certificate in the case of embryo adoption or egg or sperm donation?
I suppose the nice thing about a blog is that I can rant and rave about these things, even though no one probably cares. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
People Who Don’t Want a Public Option Have Never Been Ill
04 Sep 2009 Leave a Comment
in not kids Tags: crps, health, politics, rant
(originally posted on LiveJournal)
I almost titled this post “People who don’t want a public option are stupid.” But they’re not. As far as I can tell, none of them have ever been really ill, or suffered from a disability. I’m angry, so that makes me want to say mean things. I don’t really believe they’re stupid. I just don’t think that they understand.
Health care is not a privilege. It is a right. Even the prisoners at Alcatraz were entitled to “medical attention”.
Insurance companies should not be allowed to deny anyone coverage. If they want to charge people more money because of “pre-existing conditions” then, fine, I guess. But they shouldn’t be allowed to deny coverage entirely.
Medicare should be available to everyone.
Only the doctors who actually see their patients should be allowed to decide what drugs, procedures, or tests a person can have. No insurance company, or insurance company reviewer should be able to say “No, you don’t get that”. I don’t care how experimental a treatment is. People should not be ill, in pain, or dying because a person who has never met them denies treatment. And frankly, I don’t care if the operation is a bone marrow transplant or a boob job. I’d rather cover the few who want surgery to make sure that the many who need surgery get it.
I do have a strange illness. If I wanted to use Social Security Disability Insurance, even at my worst, I would have had to fight tooth and nail. I couldn’t walk, yet I wasn’t technically disabled, because SSDI doesn’t recognize CRPS as an illness. I had to keep my job because I needed the health benefits. Those benefits wouldn’t cover my pain doctor, so I paid $100 out of pocket every time I saw him. They only covered 8 physical therapy visits, so I had to pay out of pocket to do that as well.
It is absolute bullshit that benefits follow where you work. I’ve said it before – my work’s health plan is woefully lacking. They won’t cover my main medication, which is $800 per month. Competition isn’t going to change that. Why? Because the drug is a very controlled substance that only one pharmacy in the US is allowed to carry. It’s also developed by a company called “Orphan Medical” which makes drugs for uncommon diseases. CRPS and narcolepsy, which is actually what the drug is for aren’t common, so no one wants to make drugs – there’s no profit in it.
We have coverage through Max’s COBRA right now. If Max gets a job, it better have good benefits. He can’t take a job that offers Kaiser only. (Kaiser being an HMO.) I wouldn’t be able to find a doctor to treat me, and my $800 med wouldn’t be covered. I’m going to have to fight to get my medication approved, because it’s an off-label use. There are no drugs approved for the treatment of CRPS, despite the fact that it goes back to the American Civil War (when it was called causalgia).
I take offense at people who say it’s the hypochondriacs and fakers that are driving up health care costs. Again, that’s bullshit. The way the system is set up, insurance companies have to make money. They make money by denying care and coverage. So, even people who have health insurance can’t get the care they need in a timely manner. I was lucky to be diagnosed within months of being injured. I was lucky that most of the procedures and drugs were covered, and that we could afford (albeit barely) to pay for the doctor and drugs that weren’t. People who have cancer are being denied treatment. Jack’s birthmother’s son was turned away for an MRI after a seizure. He ended up having an 8 minute long seizure that has caused permanent brain damage and blindness. (She has private insurance, and Iggy had Medicaid or state insurance.) A good friend of ours was trucked hours away from her home when she went into labor prematurely. She had to go to an “in-network” hospital with a NICU.
Health care companies should not be allowed to operate for-profit. We need a public option. We need care like France and the UK have. There is one complaint that I’ve heard about the UK that does bother me – apparently, mental health care takes forever to get. We’d need to work on that. Of course, right now, US insurance companies restrict or deny mental health care as well. (And forget about physical therapy.)
Oh, and about Americans being fat and lazy. Our government subsidizes the growing of corn. Therefore, high fructose corn syrup, which is a very bad sweetener, is far cheaper than sugar, which is not nearly as damaging. HFCS has been linked to diabetes, it can contain mercury (because of how it’s processed), it’s stored in the body differently than regular sugar. It is truly the worst thing for us. But it’s cheap, so we buy it, and we eat it. Look at the labels, and you’ll see how many products have HFCS in it. Bread!
We’re also poisoning ourselves with all sorts of chemicals. Parabens and other hormone disruptors are stored in body fat. The average American gains 5 pounds per year because of parabens.
Certainly, Americans need to exercise more, but when are we going to do that? We have one of the longest work weeks in the world (although our productivity isn’t the highest). We don’t offer affordable, dependable, quality child care. It’s all about hurrying up and buying more. But that’s a whole other post.
And speaking of statistics, we’re #180 on the infant mortality rate list. Cuba is better than we are.
Government run health care actually makes sense if it’s run right. It improves infant mortality rates, it improves the health of its citizens. We need it, and just because we have it, doesn’t mean you have to use it. Even single, childless people pay for schools. We all pay for the police, the fire department, the libraries, the post office… We all pay for wars to go and kill people. Why can’t we pay to make the people in our country well?
Wii Fit
05 Jul 2009 Leave a Comment
in not kids Tags: health, rant, wii
(originally posted on LiveJournal)
Max bought a Wii Fit, probably about a month ago.
The Wii Fit will not register Jack, because, even when he’s standing relatively still, it tells him he’s fidgeting.
My Wii Fit age is 46.
I’m 33. Almost 34.
I couldn’t do two of the balance tests, because I couldn’t make my left knee bend that way. It really pisses me off, how so few fitness options are available to the disabled. I’m only slightly disabled – there are things my knee just can’t do, and things that I can’t do because of the meds that make me able to walk. I could swim, I can walk, just not fast, etc. I’m never going to be able to run or do a heavy cardiovascular workout. I can’t bike. I can lift weights. It always depressed me when reading Newsweek, that all of the fitness articles focused on getting people who simply didn’t move to move more. What about people in wheelchairs, for whatever reason? What about the paralyzed? People with disorders like cerebral palsy, for whom some movements are simply not possible? Obviously, these people can and do workout – some of them to an incredible extent. But it’s more complicated than saying, “While watching TV, get on the treadmill”. You know, the guilt-based articles? When I really couldn’t walk, I loathed them.
I didn’t mean to get on that rant. Mostly, I wanted to note that the Wii fit thinks I’m old.
Mr. Clueless
12 Jan 2009 Leave a Comment
in adoption, not kids Tags: adoption, rant
(originally posted on LiveJournal)
On one of the adoption.com forums, a user with the Id “Mr. Detail” posted this:
This is my first post to this forum and I hope to glean some good advice from all of you. My wife and I are born again Christians and have a 4-1/2 yr. old adopted girl from birth. We have been praying lately about the right timing for telling her that she is adopted and we believe the time is right now. My question is just simply what methods have worked well for any of the adoptive parents on this board?
